Appeal No. 2000-1646
Application 08/467,425
with the Examiner’s conclusion, and find that the selection of glass as the reinforcing
fiber of Nakamura would have been prima facie obvious.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Nakamura in view of Murray.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, and 19-20 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20
of U.S. Patent No. 5, 717,191 is sustained
The rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nakamura in view of Murray is sustained.
Time Period for Response
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
)
) INTERFERENCES
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007